Court of inquiry and the Michael Morton case

Details of case that sent an innocent man to prison should put prosecutors on notice.

Copyright 2013: Houston Chronicle

Published
8:23 pm CST, Friday, February 8, 2013

Normally Williamson County District Judge Ken Anderson would have spent this past week hearing motions and perhaps presiding over a trial in his courtroom on the first floor of Georgetown's new courthouse. Instead, he spent the week in the dock a short way down the hall in the courtroom of a fellow judge.

Anderson is, in effect, on trial in a proceeding called a "court of inquiry." The former district attorney is accused of stealing 25 years of Michael Morton's life by hiding evidence that could have kept him from being wrongly convicted of brutally bludgeoning his wife to death in 1986. If the judge presiding over the court of inquiry determines that Anderson committed a crime in hiding evidence, Anderson could face a criminal trial.

Anderson is accused of failing to turn over to the defense a transcript in which Morton's then 3-year-old son is described by his grandmother as saying he had seen a "monster" kill his mother while his father was away, providing details that closely matched the crime scene. Anderson also allegedly failed to turn over a police report that neighbors had seen a stranger walking behind Morton's house, apparently casing it.

Morton was freed after attorneys with the Innocence Project, with the help of Houston attorney John Raley, won a six-year court battle to test DNA on a bandana found in back of the house. The tests showed Christine Morton's blood and DNA from a male who was not Michael Morton. A check of a national database found the DNA matched that of Mark Norwood, a felon who lived nearby at the time. Norwood's DNA was also found in connection with a markedly similar murder in Austin a year and a half after Christine Morton's murder.

The court of inquiry has turned out to be an excellent vehicle for bringing transparency to a much-needed public examination into then-D.A. Anderson's actions. Rusty Hardin, one of Houston's top criminal defense attorneys, has vigorously laid out detailed accounts of how Anderson built a case on false assumptions and faulty evidence while vigorously acting to keep the defense from obtaining documents that would have helped their case.

Anderson even went so far as to keep the deputy who was the lead investigator from testifying because he would have been required to turn over the deputy's reports, including the ones on the son's account and of the suspicious stranger.

Meanwhile, Anderson's attorneys have mounted a vigorous and capable defense of their client, bringing out mitigating facts that had not been made public.

Even if Anderson is not found to have committed any crime, other prosecutors should be sobered by the detailed public account of how badly he botched this case - and the horrible consequences that resulted. The possibility that they could suffer such public exposure should make them cautious.

Courts of inquiry have a checkered and controversial past. They have too many times been used by local officials to pursue political vendettas. Through serendipity, this proceeding was shielded from that dynamic. The Williamson County judge in charge of determining whether the court of inquiry should be held, District Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, recused himself.

As a result, Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson appointed Judge Sid Harle, a highly regarded San Antonio judge, to make the determination. Jefferson would also choose a respected judge from Fort Worth, Louis Sturns, to preside over the court of inquiry.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, who sits on the Senate's Criminal Justice Committee (and is board chairman of the Innocence Project), attended the first day of the Morton court of inquiry. He has called for an "innocence commission" to investigate wrongful convictions.

He should consider an alternative. Courts of inquiry such as this one can examine wrongful convictions with focus and efficiency. Legislation should prescribe the role of the chief justice in selecting the appropriate judges from outside the local jurisdiction to determine whether a court of inquiry should be conducted and to preside over it.

The proceedings should focus not just on criminal misbehavior by prosecutors, but on noncriminal prosecutorial misconduct and faulty investigations as well. There are lessons to be learned and accountability to be assigned.